3 ms·

It seems like he wants to force people to be exposed to diverse/opposing views... isn't that kind of the opposite of authoritarian?

by md224 13y ago

throwaway_yy2Di 13y ago
In the same way that an NSA surveillance state built to defend the democratic way of life is the opposite of totalitarian.
tonyarkles 13y ago
I read that as "lots of people in the media and in Internet discussions disagree with what we're doing and they need to be exposed to at least some content that supports us." Purely authoritarian would be "everyone needs to just talk about our point of view." That wouldn't fly too well on the Internet, so this seems like the next best thing. "No one is saying anything good about what we're doing and we need to change that. Not by changing what we do, but by coercing them to be exposed to things that support us."
dictum 13y ago
I won't touch the value of exposing people to diverse views, but such a system would limit the views to only what's vetted by people and institutions regulating that system. The conspiracy theorists of Sunstein's paper have a term for this: controlled opposition. So you have a website espousing a political view. You'd have to put a section listing other views... but what views do you put in that section? How would you go about deciding what views are opposite to yours? What about less known views? Soon you'd get something like an AdSense For Opinions; an ad area with three views, each with a short description. "DRUGS FOR A BETTER LIFE. We believe every human should use more drugs and medicines daily. betterlifethroughdrugs.org", "US DOLLAR: ROOT OF ALL EVIL. US Dollar proven root of all evil, Bible proof inside. See our proposed alternative currencies. dollar-evil-get-saved.com", "EVERYTHING IS NICE. Life is pretty much swell, man. Chill out. whatareyouevenworriedabout.net" Every possible political position and opinion would have to be considered if you want to show diverse views.
- md224 13y ago
  Right, but it seems like such a policy would be additive rather than subtractive. In other words, it would not prevent people from voicing their opinions, it would merely force them to include other opinions alongside their own. You're right that such a policy isn't really feasible in terms of real-world implementation. But I do worry that the Internet has problems with polarization and filter-bubbling, and I appreciate suggestions for trying to mitigate those issues.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - Torgo 13y ago
    Do you figure he'd insert opposing viewpoints into feminist "safe spaces?" Maybe people worried about the government exerting "cognitive infiltration" want a safe space free of government cognitive infiltrators.
  - unclebucknasty 13y ago
    >such a policy would be additive rather than subtractive. Yes, but it still seems an infringement on the First as it, in effect, requires people to also "say" things that they don't want to say, even if only by referencing the words of others. Also, if a person found the opposing viewpoint morally repugnant to the point where referencing it would be objectionable then he may opt to stifle his own speech in order to avoid such a reference. Free speech, of course, provides no requirement for noble motives of engaging opposing ideas, etc. as this guy proposes.
ferdo 13y ago
> It seems like he wants to force people to be exposed to diverse/opposing views... isn't that kind of the opposite of authoritarian? Force = authoritarian.
- md224 13y ago
  > Force = authoritarian Are you opposed to all forms of coercion? Anyway, I'll concede that force is probably the wrong way to go about it... the government could provide incentives for exposing people to diverse viewpoints, but forcing people to do so is a bit extreme.
  - ferdo 13y ago
    Force and fraud are the basis of all anti-social thinking and behavior, so yes, I'm opposed to coercion in all forms.
    - md224 13y ago
      Ah, so you consider yourself an anarchist then? (Not asking this pejoratively; it's a legitimate political philosophy, just one I don't happen to subscribe to.) I feel like coercion is kind of inevitable in some circumstances; I don't think anyone is opposed to forcing a rapist to submit to punishment. Anyway, that's a different discussion altogether. While I think force may be necessary in some aspects of society, I concede that applying force to the realm of discourse is probably a bad idea.
      - ferdo 13y ago
        I leave it to others to apply labels. I just despise criminality and sociopathic assumptions, especially in government. When someone, such as a rapist or a politician, has proven that they're incapable of peaceful behavior in society, we have the right to defend ourselves from them. IOW, self-defense isn't coercion. The coercion has already been committed by the criminal. If you're walking down the street and I mug you, I'm applying the force. You, in self-defense, aren't being "violent" in your intent to protect yourself. You're trying to stop the violence I'm committing against you. I guess what I'm saying is I wish people would worry less about labels and more about principles. To get back on topic a little, the government using the tactics as laid out by Sunstein is a fraud being perpetrated by the force of government so it rings all kinds of bells.
Torgo 13y ago
Rest assured it would be officially authorized diverse/opposing views only.

It seems like he wants to force people to be exposed to diverse/opposing views... isn't that kind of the opposite of authoritarian?

by md224 13y ago

It seems like he wants to force people to be exposed to diverse/opposing views... isn't that kind of the opposite of authoritarian?

throwaway_yy2Di 13y ago

In the same way that an NSA surveillance state built to defend the democratic way of life is the opposite of totalitarian.

tonyarkles 13y ago

I read that as "lots of people in the media and in Internet discussions disagree with what we're doing and they need to be exposed to at least some content that supports us." Purely authoritarian would be "everyone needs to just talk about our point of view." That wouldn't fly too well on the Internet, so this seems like the next best thing. "No one is saying anything good about what we're doing and we need to change that. Not by changing what we do, but by coercing them to be exposed to things that support us."

dictum 13y ago

I won't touch the value of exposing people to diverse views, but such a system would limit the views to only what's vetted by people and institutions regulating that system. The conspiracy theorists of Sunstein's paper have a term for this: controlled opposition. So you have a website espousing a political view. You'd have to put a section listing other views... but what views do you put in that section? How would you go about deciding what views are opposite to yours? What about less known views? Soon you'd get something like an AdSense For Opinions; an ad area with three views, each with a short description. "DRUGS FOR A BETTER LIFE. We believe every human should use more drugs and medicines daily. betterlifethroughdrugs.org", "US DOLLAR: ROOT OF ALL EVIL. US Dollar proven root of all evil, Bible proof inside. See our proposed alternative currencies. dollar-evil-get-saved.com", "EVERYTHING IS NICE. Life is pretty much swell, man. Chill out. whatareyouevenworriedabout.net" Every possible political position and opinion would have to be considered if you want to show diverse views.

md224 13y ago
Right, but it seems like such a policy would be additive rather than subtractive. In other words, it would not prevent people from voicing their opinions, it would merely force them to include other opinions alongside their own. You're right that such a policy isn't really feasible in terms of real-world implementation. But I do worry that the Internet has problems with polarization and filter-bubbling, and I appreciate suggestions for trying to mitigate those issues.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- Torgo 13y ago
  Do you figure he'd insert opposing viewpoints into feminist "safe spaces?" Maybe people worried about the government exerting "cognitive infiltration" want a safe space free of government cognitive infiltrators.
- unclebucknasty 13y ago
  >such a policy would be additive rather than subtractive. Yes, but it still seems an infringement on the First as it, in effect, requires people to also "say" things that they don't want to say, even if only by referencing the words of others. Also, if a person found the opposing viewpoint morally repugnant to the point where referencing it would be objectionable then he may opt to stifle his own speech in order to avoid such a reference. Free speech, of course, provides no requirement for noble motives of engaging opposing ideas, etc. as this guy proposes.

ferdo 13y ago

> It seems like he wants to force people to be exposed to diverse/opposing views... isn't that kind of the opposite of authoritarian? Force = authoritarian.

md224 13y ago
> Force = authoritarian Are you opposed to all forms of coercion? Anyway, I'll concede that force is probably the wrong way to go about it... the government could provide incentives for exposing people to diverse viewpoints, but forcing people to do so is a bit extreme.
- ferdo 13y ago
  Force and fraud are the basis of all anti-social thinking and behavior, so yes, I'm opposed to coercion in all forms.
  - md224 13y ago
    Ah, so you consider yourself an anarchist then? (Not asking this pejoratively; it's a legitimate political philosophy, just one I don't happen to subscribe to.) I feel like coercion is kind of inevitable in some circumstances; I don't think anyone is opposed to forcing a rapist to submit to punishment. Anyway, that's a different discussion altogether. While I think force may be necessary in some aspects of society, I concede that applying force to the realm of discourse is probably a bad idea.
    - ferdo 13y ago
      I leave it to others to apply labels. I just despise criminality and sociopathic assumptions, especially in government. When someone, such as a rapist or a politician, has proven that they're incapable of peaceful behavior in society, we have the right to defend ourselves from them. IOW, self-defense isn't coercion. The coercion has already been committed by the criminal. If you're walking down the street and I mug you, I'm applying the force. You, in self-defense, aren't being "violent" in your intent to protect yourself. You're trying to stop the violence I'm committing against you. I guess what I'm saying is I wish people would worry less about labels and more about principles. To get back on topic a little, the government using the tactics as laid out by Sunstein is a fraud being perpetrated by the force of government so it rings all kinds of bells.

Torgo 13y ago

Rest assured it would be officially authorized diverse/opposing views only.